The thing is that the first time I tried to do this: nand erase 0 0 2048
I got presented with command usage and had no idea why it was failing. I looked into it a bit more and found out what the block size was. For my NAND chip it is 128KB. Now, when I tried again with nand erase 0 0 0x20000 It failed in the same way. Looking at how the NAND struct was used, the erase block size is defined as 0. There is a check in the nand erase command handler that checks for length % nand->erase_size != 0 and this fails for my chip when I specify length. The issue is that the erase block size is wrong and this could be retrieved from the Samsung NAND chip. I'm wondering if it would be good to parse this field out when probed or to just set the value in the device_id array as opposed to leaving it as 0. Long story short, nand probe works. I'm just not sure if specifying 128k erase blocks for all 512MiB, 8-bit NAND chips is correct. This leads me to another question. Should there be more descriptive error output? It's sort of confusing to get presented with the command syntax when the syntax is correct, but the underlying command handler errors over an invalid parameter value. // Dean Glazeski On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:04 AM, David Brownell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday 18 November 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Is there a good way for me to determine the erase block size for a NAND > > chip? Right now, the device ID array in nand.c has 0 as the erase block > > size for my NAND device. I believe this should be 128k. Is this not > always > > the case for 512MiB, 8-bit NAND devices? Is this just a case of no one > has > > filled in the table? I know my Samsung chip gives out additional data > bytes > > in addition to manufacturer and device ID that specify block and page > > sizes. Can this be leveraged to dynamically populate the NAND devices? > > I'm not following. Not that I've done this with very many NAND chips ... > but "nand probe <bank#>" has so far been good at finding out block sizes. > Including 1GiB parts filled out like the 512Mib ones... > > Are you saying that "nand probe" fails for your chip? > > Or just wondering if the table should be filled in differently? > >
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
